In a significant legal development, the Uttarakhand High Court has quashed the summons issued by a trial court against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., Divya Pharmacy, and their key figures—Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna—in a case concerning alleged misleading advertisements. The complaint, filed by the State government, accused the company of publishing deceptive ads promoting various products, including the controversial Coronil. The trial court had previously taken cognizance of these allegations and issued summons on April 16, 2024. However, the High Court, in its ruling on June 3, 2025, found the trial court's actions to be legally untenable.
Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the complaint lacked essential elements required to substantiate the charges under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Notably, the complaint did not include any expert report verifying that the advertisements were false or misleading. The court pointed out that merely issuing a letter instructing the removal of the advertisements without specifying the falsity of the claims was insufficient to initiate legal proceedings. Furthermore, the High Court observed that there was no concrete allegation detailing how the advertisements were deceptive, rendering the trial court's decision to summon the accused as legally flawed.
The State's reference to the Supreme Court's observations regarding contempt of court by the accused was also deemed inappropriate by the High Court. Justice Sharma clarified that the High Court's review was confined to assessing the legality and propriety of the trial court's cognizance order, independent of the Supreme Court's remarks. This distinction underscores the principle of judicial independence, where higher court observations do not automatically influence the decisions of subordinate courts unless explicitly applicable.
Additionally, the High Court noted that many of the alleged offenses cited in the complaint occurred more than a year before the cognizance was taken, thereby surpassing the statutory limitation period. According to the law, offenses under the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act must be prosecuted within a specified time frame, and the trial court's failure to consider this aspect further undermined the validity of its summons.
The ruling has significant implications for the legal landscape concerning advertising practices in India. It highlights the necessity for regulatory authorities to ensure that complaints are substantiated with expert evidence before initiating legal action. Moreover, the judgment serves as a reminder to courts to exercise due diligence in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence before proceeding with summons, thereby safeguarding individuals and entities from unwarranted legal harassment.
In conclusion, the Uttarakhand High Court's decision to quash the summons against Patanjali and its leaders underscores the importance of adhering to legal standards and procedures in prosecuting cases related to misleading advertisements. The judgment reinforces the need for a balanced approach that protects consumers from deceptive practices while upholding the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.